And so that if people come to a consensus that this works while I’m asleep, it can be adminned without needing to wait for me to wake up (but you should probably hold off on adminning it until there’s a consensus).

On a side note, I was really intrigued as to whether the scam was placed into the proposal intentionally – I thought it might have been, but in retrospect it probably wasn’t.

It wasn’t. The reading of the sentence was meant that “where this string is considered flavor text” applied to the text before “set their Team”. The comma between that and the next text separates the two, such that “as long as all of the following criteria are true” applies to the text before the commas.

If it were to apply to “where this string is considered flavor text” it would have looked like this:

where this string is considered flavor text as long as all of the following criteria are true

which would be a plain English reading of the text. Punctuation is important and has meaning.

Therefore, I believe this post is illegal because it was not posted by a Meeple on a legal Team.

Doesn’t your reading require the previous comma to not be present? I agree that “a Meeple can set their Team to any string of between 3 and 20 alphanumeric characters where this string is considered flavor text, as long as all of the following criteria are true” would match the intended meaning. The comma makes it ambiguous, though: the sentence can plausibly be interpreted as

As a Weekly Action, [a Meeple can set their Team to any string of between 3 and 20 alphanumeric characters, where this string is considered flavor text], as long as all of the following criteria are true:

(your reading),

As a Weekly Action, a Meeple can set their Team to any string of between 3 and 20 alphanumeric characters, [where this string is considered flavor text, as long as all of the following criteria are true:]

(my reading),

or

As a Weekly Action, [a Meeple can set their Team to any string of between 3 and 20 alphanumeric characters, where this string is considered flavor text, as long as all of the following criteria are true:]

(a third possible reading, in which the action is possible more than once a week if any of the criteria are false).

I don’t see any reason other than the obvious authorial intent to favour your reading over mine, and we generally haven’t been using intent to interpret rules recently.

True, I’m not arguing intent at all. I only mentioned it as the reason I bothered with commas in the first place.

I’ve posted a CfJ, as I think that’s the better place to discuss this. If that CfJ fails, then you get to keep your Team name of “Winning” and thus this Kingmaker post works because you are on the Winning Team.